Know When to Stop: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for Reducing Overthinking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2607.00482v1
• Date: Wed, 01 Jul 2026 06:09:56 GMT
• Title: Know When to Stop: Segment-Level Credit Assignment for Reducing Overthinking
• Abstract summary: We show that incorrect traces exhibit higher rates of unproductive self-reflection than correct ones.<n>We propose DASH, which assigns segment-level credit based on whether each reasoning segment leads toward or away from correctness.
• Score: 12.589885044346827
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Reasoning language models frequently overthink: generating extended chains of behaviors such as hedging, approach abandonment, and self contradiction that consume tokens without improving answers. We show that these behaviors are not merely a consequence of length; even when controlling for response length, incorrect traces exhibit higher rates of unproductive self-reflection than correct ones. Addressing this requires identifying where self-reflection helps vs hurts, but obtaining these step-level annotations is costly. We observe that intermediate answer commitments within reasoning traces can provide a cheap proxy: by comparing each final answer candidate in the trace to the ground truth, we can determine whether subsequent reflection is productive without any additional supervision. Building on this insight, we propose DASH (Drift Aware advantage SHaping), which assigns segment-level credit based on whether each reasoning segment leads toward or away from correctness. On competition-level math benchmarks, DASH achieves the highest accuracy where overthinking is prevalent (AIME25: 50.8% vs. 45.4% GRPO) while reducing overthinking behaviors and achieving more productive self-correction than baselines.

Related papers

• Thinking Past the Answer: Evaluating Harmful Overthinking in Large Reasoning Models [38.84286306535778]
  We show that stopping at the first correct prefix improves accuracy over standard reasoning up to 21%.<n>While common efficiency strategies like early stopping substantially reduce verbose overthinking, they fail to mitigate harmful overthinking.<n>Our findings generalize to language-only reasoning benchmarks, highlighting harmful overthinking as a broader reliability risk.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-01T19:59:27Z)
• Stepwise Penalization for Length-Efficient Chain-of-Thought Reasoning [66.22060690012512]
  Large reasoning models improve with more test-time computation, but often overthink, producing unnecessarily long chains-of-thought that raise cost without improving accuracy.<n>We propose Step-wise Adaptive Penalization (SWAP), a fine-grained framework that allocates length reduction across steps based on intrinsic contribution.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T20:23:59Z)
• Addressing Overthinking in Large Vision-Language Models via Gated Perception-Reasoning Optimization [56.59356959631999]
  Gated Perception-Reasoning Optimization (GPRO) is a meta-reasoning controller that dynamically routes computation among three decision paths.<n>GPRO substantially improves both accuracy and efficiency, outperforming recent slow-thinking methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-07T23:05:17Z)
• Correct, Concise and Complete: Multi-stage Training For Adaptive Reasoning [11.179446105672461]
  We propose a multi-stage efficient reasoning method that combines supervised fine-tuning and reinforcement learning.<n>Our approach reduces response length by an average of 28% for 8B models and 40% for 32B models.<n>It achieves a superior trade-off compared to more complex state-of-the-art efficient reasoning methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-06T12:31:51Z)
• Understanding and Steering the Cognitive Behaviors of Reasoning Models at Test-Time [22.9491443902816]
  We study the structure of reasoning trajectories and uncover specialized attention heads that correlate with distinct cognitive behaviors.<n>We propose CREST, a training-free method for Cognitive REasoning Steering at Test-time.<n>CREST adaptively suppresses unproductive reasoning behaviors, yielding both higher accuracy and lower computational cost.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-31T02:46:04Z)
• In-Token Rationality Optimization: Towards Accurate and Concise LLM Reasoning via Self-Feedback [38.915062716409686]
  InTRO is a new framework that enables both token-level exploration and self-feedback for accurate and concise reasoning.<n>InTRO consistently outperforms other baselines, raising solution accuracy by up to 20% relative to the base model.<n>Its chains of thought are notably more concise, exhibiting reduced verbosity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-13T01:47:06Z)
• Stop Spinning Wheels: Mitigating LLM Overthinking via Mining Patterns for Early Reasoning Exit [114.83867400179354]
  Overthinking can degrade overall performance of large language models.<n>We categorize reasoning into three stages: insufficient exploration stage, compensatory reasoning stage, and reasoning convergence stage.<n>We develop a lightweight thresholding strategy based on rules to improve reasoning accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-25T03:17:17Z)
• Think Clearly: Improving Reasoning via Redundant Token Pruning [57.01254508252785]
  We show that deliberately removing redundancy in the reasoning process significantly improves performance.<n>We demonstrate that our method significantly improves overall accuracy across reasoning-intensive benchmarks without any training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-17T06:04:01Z)
• Revisiting Overthinking in Long Chain-of-Thought from the Perspective of Self-Doubt [74.35891434097053]
  Reasoning Large Language Models (RLLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on complex tasks.<n>They often exhibit overthinking -- performing unnecessary reasoning steps even after arriving at the correct answer.<n>We present a quantitative analysis of overthinking from the perspective of self-doubt.<n>We introduce a simple and effective prompting method to reduce the model's over-reliance on input questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-29T14:30:02Z)
• Beyond the Last Answer: Your Reasoning Trace Uncovers More than You Think [51.0691253204425]
  We analyze intermediate reasoning steps, termed subthoughts, to answer two questions: Does the final answer reliably represent the model's optimal conclusion?<n>Our approach involves segmenting a reasoning trace into sequential subthoughts based on linguistic cues.<n>We find that aggregating these answers by selecting the most frequent one (the mode) often yields significantly higher accuracy compared to relying solely on the answer derived from the original complete trace.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-29T12:39:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.